Suit to be tried after the period specified in Section 3.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. This case has posed a problem in giving effect to Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Act, 1976. This section barred for a short duration, the institution of suits for recovery of debts from agriculturists. The petitioner in this civil revision petition was the defendant in a suit on a promissory note on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddalore. The petitioner invoked Section 3 of the Act as a bar to the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge tried this issue as a preliminary issue. At the end of the inquiry, he held that the section did not apply to this case and posted the suit for further trial on the remaining issues. This decision is now questioned by the defendant in this civil revision petition.

2. At the hearing before me, there was little or no controversy as to the construction of Section 3 of the Act or even as to its application to the present case. The parties were at variance only on the manner of giving effect to the provision in the context of the present case.

3. As earlier indicated, Section 3 of the Act imposed a moratorium on the recovery of debts by Court process. The section, as amended, read as under:

3. Bar of Suits and applications :--No suit for the recovery of debt shall be instituted, no application for the execution of a decree for payment of money passed in a suit for the recovery of a debt shall be made and no suit or application for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of nonpayment of a debt shall be instituted or made, against any agriculturist in any civil or revenue Court on and from the date of commencement of this Act and before the expiry of two years and six months from the said date.

4. The reckoning of the period of the bar enacted in the section does not involve any feat of calculation, The date of commencement of the Act was 15th January, 1976, as laid down in Section 1(3). Two years and six months from that date would expire on 15th July, 1978. The bar imposed by the section was, therefore, in force on and from 15th January, 1976 until 15th July, 1978, both days inclusive. The suit against the petitioner in this case had been brought on 6th July, 1978, while the bar under the section was still operative. The learned Subordinate Judge's finding to the contrary was therefore quite erroneous. His mistake lay in thinking that the operative period of the bar under the section was only two years He had obviously overlooked an amendment. to the section which had enlarged the bar to two years and six months.

5. The result is that on the preliminary issue it must now be held that the suit against the petitioner was instituted in contravention of Section 3 of the Act. But as I had earlier indicated, the difficulty which the Court faces in this case is not as to the applicability of the bar under Section 3, but as to how the present finding on that issue is to be followed up and given effect to in the suit, which is now pending disposal on the Sub-Court's file. On one thing there can be no two opinions. Any disposal that the suit hereafter gets must not be inconsistent with the position that at the time the suit was instituted, it was clearly barred by Section 3 of the Act.

6. On this aspect of the matter, the defendant's learned Counsel said that the language of Section 3 was clear and in operation. According to his submission, when the section laid down that no suit shall be instituted for the duration of the period mentioned therein, implicit in that prohibition was the necessary consequence that the Court should have no truck with any suit, which was brought in contravention of that prohibition. According to learned Counsel, the court was left with no option and no discretion in such a situation, but to dismiss the suit without further ceremony.

7. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff, however, urged that the provisions of the Act were designed to operate only for a temporary period and it would be totally wrong and out of keeping with the nature of the prov